memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Federation class
Really canon? as per the eas-link in this article, the "Federation class" never appeart in Star Trek. what now? --Shisma 14:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC) :We slap a on it (just did that), wait some days for someone to confirm or deny, and if that doesn't happen, suggest it for deletion. :) -- Cid Highwind 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ::As just stated on the German page, the seemingly blank space in figure 14 of the TrekPlace article shows the Ferderation. Also don't forget that she was implied by the USS Entente -- Kobi 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) :::The Entente was stated to be a Federation-class vessel in voiceover in TMP, so deleting the article isn't really a valid option. As for its appearance, isn't this one of those ships whose diagram was seen in Wrath of Khan or Search for Spock, like the Hermes class? --From Andoria with Love 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Nope, the Entente's class was never mentioned in TMP. Only its registry.--137.208.3.45 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC) :::::The radio noise in TMP says "Dreadnought USS Entente Calling...NCC two one two zero". It says dreadnought though it does not say Federation class. It is nevertheless a direct reference to the SFTM. To me, it's as canon as any of the other ship info that derives from background view screen pics and lists.--Great Bear 00:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) :Seems to be clarified as per the "TrekPlace"-article. I'm removing the pna message. -- Cid Highwind 10:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC) :Looking at the "evidence" again (and having it discussed off-site), it seems as if only the image called "Fleet Ship Specifications" on EAS has been used - that image doesn't call the ship/outline "Federation class". So, where's that from? -- Cid Highwind 12:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC) i think, the article should be moved to "Dreadnought Class", like in the diagramm --Shisma 09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::because Dreadnought is a term that describes multiple classes of warships, specifically, extremely large battleships, that would be a BAD move. --''6/6'' ''Subspace'' 10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC) but it would be the canon way to call it --Shisma 10:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::Actually, Shisma is right. The closest we get to the class being given a name is this graphic, which identifies it as a "Dreadnought class". The other ships we then see with individual graphics that name them, or are named in dialogue. This is not the case with the Federation-class. The only reference we have to it giving it a class name in canon is as "Dreadnought class". Therefore, we have to move the article to that to comply with our canon policy. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::As an alternative, we could call it ''Entente'' type, as we do with ''Centaur'' type. That would be naming the type after the first appearance of the class, in absence of a proper class name. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::so it should be the "403 - Forbidden" class? --''6/6'' ''Subspace'' 11:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::A little explanation on that last comment is in order, I think o_O --OuroborosCobra talk 11:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::Click those links, and all you get is a 403 forbidden hot linking error. --''6/6'' ''Subspace'' 11:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Moved from article I removed two small bits of information from the article: *a forward-facing shuttlebay *registry of the USS Federation: NCC-2100 If all we have is a illegible part of one graphic, it would be a stretch to take information from another graphic which wasn't visible. It seems as if all we can use is an outline of the ship design - which might be enough to claim three nacelles and an aft deflector, but definitely not enough to claim a forward-facing shuttlebay. -- Cid Highwind 11:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)